What is the point of Philosophy?

[Geist]

I am returning to Philosophy after a year of studying English Lit., and the time off has severely destroyed my abilities [logical thinking is frowned upon in literary circles it seems]. Thus I want to start a few basic threads in here. The aim is to begin small, work my way up, and hopefully give the forum some life.

So let us begin with the obvious question: What is the point of philosophy?

[Anarch]

To articulate one's relation to the world.

[Ahknaton]

The pursuit of truth (and to avoid getting a real job). I don't think you can get any more specific than that. If you try to relate it to "the self" you'll get mired down in questions of "what is the self?", "what is the world?", "is there a self?", "is there a world?" etc, and it doesn't encompass areas of philosophy that don't hinge on that relationship, such as pure logic etc.

[Ravenheart]

The raise the spirit to selfconsciousness.

[Sean]

I am not sure what the point of philosophy is, but overall, I think what I have gained most from it is an ability to think critically, and not take what people say at face value. Here is a passage from Plato's Theaetetus which sums it up:

When [the philosopher] hears a tyrant or king eulogized, he fancies that he is listening to the praises of some keeper of cattle—a swineherd, or shepherd, or perhaps a cowherd, who is congratulated on the quantity of milk which he squeezes from them; and he remarks that the creature whom they tend, and out of whom they squeeze the wealth, is of a less tractable and more insidious nature. Then, again, he observes that the great man is of necessity as ill-mannered and uneducated as any shepherd—for he has no leisure, and he is surrounded by a wall, which is his mountain-pen. Hearing of enormous landed proprietors of ten thousand acres and more, our philosopher deems this to be a trifle, because he has been accustomed to think of the whole earth; and when they sing the praises of family, and say that some one is a gentleman because he can show seven generations of wealthy ancestors, he thinks that their sentiments only betray a dull and narrow vision in those who utter them, and who are not educated enough to look at the whole, nor to consider that every man has had thousands and ten thousands of progenitors, and among them have been rich and poor, kings and slaves, Hellenes and barbarians, innumerable. And when people pride themselves on having a pedigree of twenty-five ancestors, which goes back to Heracles, the son of Amphitryon, he cannot understand their poverty of ideas. Why are they unable to calculate that Amphitryon had a twenty-fifth ancestor, who might have been anybody, and was such as fortune made him, and he had a fiftieth, and so on?

When someone tells you that you should or should not believe in God, then you will ask him why? When a politician tells us that his opponent will raise taxes, you won't go, "ok, I better not vote for that guy," assuming that raising taxes is bad, but rather you will ask what the pros and cons of raising or not raising the taxes. It will help a person think outside of his periphery, know his own faults, and come to a greater understanding of others.

[Heavens to Betsy]

Philosophy is like a Swiss army knife, if does lots of things, I don't think you could pin is down to just one, perhaps the pursuit of truth, but all disciplines worth their salt (and many not worth it) would claim that as their purpose. Personally I find philosophy most useful for making sure other disciplines don't run away with themselves or get airs above their station. It does other things just as well though, certainly as a means of investigation without reference to a body of facts* it seems to be (correct me if you please) the only means of generating new bodies of facts.

The other question, what is the point of studying philosophy is trickier, and mostly less interesting. It might sharpen your reasoning, and argumentation skills. On the other hand it might permanently damage your ability (or at least your inclination) to really believe in something.

*Body of facts is not the right phrase. I can’t remember the right phrase. Anyone want to help me out?

[antibuddha]

Gettin' babes of course.

Actually, I do not think philosophy was originally intended to be a productive activity at all. If we look the originators of (western, at least) philosophy, that is the greeks, productive activity was for slaves. I think it's generally modern culture, which is utilitarian of course, that tries to put philosophy to a purpose or questions its relevance. Hence, analytic philosophy which tries to employ philosophy as a sort of engineering of thought (which is of course, is a distinctly anglo-american tradition) or otherwise sees it as useless. Whereas the ancients would likely have been prone to consider it valuable, from a 'spiritual', so to speak, standpoint precisely because it is mostly materially useless. Personally, I tend to view it simply as topic, or perhaps, mode of conversation. What could be said to be "the point" of conversation then? It's its own point.

[VAMPIR]

The pursuit of truth.
Agreed. To find out and define what is FIRST ME(self), and first me in world. And then other things connected with that (and all is connected with that:rofl: !!!) ....
Well, just philosophing...;)

[Elysium]

It's the questionning of fundamental values and issues of our world

[Thoth]

Maybe "philosophy" as the historical one-word designation of "lovers of wisdom" has no "point", but (if it includes reading the work of those so-called and thinking about the topics) is pursued simply for its own sake -- like a kind of obsession with honesty, clarity, being right and able to explain why, completion of the totality of conscious personal being.

Is there better work? -- or is 'work' something to get done with so you can get to philosophy?

Maybe: "completing activity". (From "The Philosophy of Completing Totalities")


Plato's Republic Bk VI

Socrates - GLAUCON

And thus, Glaucon, after the argument has gone a weary way, the true and the false philosophers have at length appeared in view.

I do not think, he said, that the way could have been shortened.

I suppose not, I said; and yet I believe that we might have had a better view of both of them if the discussion could have been confined to this one subject and if there were not many other questions awaiting us, which he who desires to see in what respect the life of the just differs from that of the unjust must consider.

And what is the next question? he asked.

Surely, I said, the one which follows next in order.
Inasmuch as philosophers only are able to grasp the eternal and unchangeable, and those who wander in the region of the many and variable are not philosophers, I must ask you which of the two classes should be the rulers of our State?

And how can we rightly answer that question?

Whichever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our State --let them be our guardians.

Very good.
Neither, I said, can there be any question that the guardian who is to keep anything should have eyes rather than no eyes?

There can be no question of that.
And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge of the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clear pattern, and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the absolute truth and to that original to repair, and having perfect vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness, justice in this, if not already ordered, and to guard and preserve the order of them --are not such persons, I ask, simply blind?